Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy and conventional open lumbar discectomy for L4/5 and L5/S1 double-segmental lumbar disk herniation

Although spinal endoscopic techniques have shown great advantages in the treatment of single-segment lumbar disk herniation (LDH), the therapeutic advantages for double-segment LDH are controversial. To compare the outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) versus conventiona...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research 2023-12, Vol.18 (1), p.950-950, Article 950
Hauptverfasser: Tang, Yingchuang, Li, Hanwen, Qin, Wanjin, Liu, Zixiang, Liu, Hao, Zhang, Junxin, Mao, Haiqing, Zhang, Kai, Chen, Kangwu
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Although spinal endoscopic techniques have shown great advantages in the treatment of single-segment lumbar disk herniation (LDH), the therapeutic advantages for double-segment LDH are controversial. To compare the outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) versus conventional open lumbar discectomy (COLD) for the treatment of L4/5 and L5/S1 double-segmental LDH. From January 2016 to September 2021, we included 50 patients with double-segmental LDH who underwent PEID (n = 25) or COLD (n = 25). The clinical outcomes between the two groups were evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS), the Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the modified MacNab criteria. Moreover, the incision length, operation time, intraoperative fluoroscopy time, postoperative bedtime, hospital stays, and complications were also recorded and compared after surgery. In both groups, the VAS and ODI scores at different timepoints postoperatively were significantly improved compared with those preoperatively (P 
ISSN:1749-799X
1749-799X
DOI:10.1186/s13018-023-04361-9